Valdez v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge:
concur in part/dissent in part.
T1 I concur that the legal basis for Petitioner's claim was available at the time of his first application for post-conviction relief, Not only that, but it was available at trial, on direct appeal, and his petition for habeas corpus relief in the federal courts. See Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363 (Okl.Cr.1995); Valdez v. State, 933 P.2d 931 (Okl.Cr.1997); Valdez v. Ward, 219 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir.2000). His failure to raise the claim at those times bars future consideration of the issue. Therefore, we do not reach the merits of the claim…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Cooper v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Valdez v. GibsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
- Hain v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1993
- Rojem v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.